On 2014-02-19 09:24:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Here are updated patches to use pg_lsn instead of pglsn... > > Should I register this patch somewhere to avoid having it lost in the void? > > Regards, > > Well, I committed this, but the buildfarm's deeply unhappy with it. > Apparently the use of GET_8_BYTES() and SET_8_BYTES() is no good on > some platforms... and I'm not sure what to do about that, right > off-hand.
The relevant bit probably is: pg_lsn.c: In function 'pg_lsn_out': pg_lsn.c:59:2: warning: implicit declaration of function 'GET_8_BYTES' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] GET_8_BYTES only exists for 64bit systems. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers